These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Planned lowsec sentry "fix" - you guys serious?

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Templar Nato
#501 - 2012-08-05 00:20:21 UTC
A lot of the posters in this thread seem to have limited experience with gate guns. I'd like to see if they have the same opinion after taking their favorite battlecruiser out solo and engaging someone on a gate and seeing what happens to them. Yeah, you lose ... The gate guns are already a massive bonus for the player being aggressed (as they should be). I can't count the number of times I've run into people on gates who sit there picking their nose staring at me and refusing to shoot because they not only want to outnumber me, but want me to take gate guns as well.

As mentioned previously, 90% of PvP in low sec takes place on stations and gates as they are natural bottlenecks. the suggestions that we all meet at planet 1 to shoot each other are as absurd as they sound. How's that conversation going to go? "Hi there pirate buddy! Here's our fleet comp, want to meet us at planet one for gudfites??=)". Not exactly the spirit of low sec. These changes would effectively limit target gang sizes to not much more than 10 members, since any more than that and the members of the aggressing fleet are going to be taking capital annihilating gate guns since the fleet will be running over 5 min. And hell, even if you do win the engagement and hold the field it's not like you're going to be hanging around under that kind of fire to loot up.

Perhaps the changes would bring more risk adverse people into Low sec, however, what's the point? We can't shoot them on the gates and we can't shoot them on stations, meaning we'd have to probe people down doing whatever it is they're in low sec for ... certainly not the fleet-based roaming PvP I currently enjoy. I also don't understand what's up with these seemingly hundreds of gate camps in low sec people are talking about. I can think of maybe 4 systems that are regularly camped with any sizable force. If you don't like that, use your intelligence and the ships you're already provided in Eve to either find an alternate route, or break through the camp. Asking for a game mechanic to act as a crutch is pretty sad.

When I originally listened to the proposed crimewatch changes on the Fanfest broadcasts I was excited to hear the potential for the revival of frigate-based PvP in low sec, which would have opened up a lot more opportunities for those of us who live here. I really don't understand the thinking behind the new proposal ... It will reduce the amount of roaming gang PvP in low sec and make the area less enjoyable to live in. Outside of FW, why would anyone want to live in low sec after this nerf?
ANGRY23
Safety Set To Red
Train Wreck.
#502 - 2012-08-05 00:25:53 UTC
Templar Nato wrote:
A lot of the posters in this thread seem to have limited experience with gate guns. I'd like to see if they have the same opinion after taking their favorite battlecruiser out solo and engaging someone on a gate and seeing what happens to them. Yeah, you lose ... The gate guns are already a massive bonus for the player being aggressed (as they should be). I can't count the number of times I've run into people on gates who sit there picking their nose staring at me and refusing to shoot because they not only want to outnumber me, but want me to take gate guns as well.

As mentioned previously, 90% of PvP in low sec takes place on stations and gates as they are natural bottlenecks. the suggestions that we all meet at planet 1 to shoot each other are as absurd as they sound. How's that conversation going to go? "Hi there pirate buddy! Here's our fleet comp, want to meet us at planet one for gudfites??=)". Not exactly the spirit of low sec. These changes would effectively limit target gang sizes to not much more than 10 members, since any more than that and the members of the aggressing fleet are going to be taking capital annihilating gate guns since the fleet will be running over 5 min. And hell, even if you do win the engagement and hold the field it's not like you're going to be hanging around under that kind of fire to loot up.

Perhaps the changes would bring more risk adverse people into Low sec, however, what's the point? We can't shoot them on the gates and we can't shoot them on stations, meaning we'd have to probe people down doing whatever it is they're in low sec for ... certainly not the fleet-based roaming PvP I currently enjoy. I also don't understand what's up with these seemingly hundreds of gate camps in low sec people are talking about. I can think of maybe 4 systems that are regularly camped with any sizable force. If you don't like that, use your intelligence and the ships you're already provided in Eve to either find an alternate route, or break through the camp. Asking for a game mechanic to act as a crutch is pretty sad.

When I originally listened to the proposed crimewatch changes on the Fanfest broadcasts I was excited to hear the potential for the revival of frigate-based PvP in low sec, which would have opened up a lot more opportunities for those of us who live here. I really don't understand the thinking behind the new proposal ... It will reduce the amount of roaming gang PvP in low sec and make the area less enjoyable to live in. Outside of FW, why would anyone want to live in low sec after this nerf?


+1 especially this part - Csm included imo " lot of the posters in this thread seem to have limited experience with gate guns. I'd like to see if they have the same opinion after taking their favorite battlecruiser out solo and engaging someone on a gate and seeing what happens to them. Yeah, you lose ..." QFT
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#503 - 2012-08-05 00:32:48 UTC
if all you do is roaming gangs what's wrong with 0.0. Lowsec is for ganks not fights. and if there is a fight it's going to be over pos's and poco's.
Ensign X
#504 - 2012-08-05 00:38:39 UTC
Beekeeper Bob wrote:
Have you ever been to 0.0? In the last few years? ... Do your reseach before making a blanket statement. Oops



You mean how you did research before asking if I've been to Nullsec in the last few years? Killboards are hard, amirite?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#505 - 2012-08-05 01:28:13 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Beekeeper Bob wrote:
Have you ever been to 0.0? In the last few years? ... Do your reseach before making a blanket statement. Oops



You mean how you did research before asking if I've been to Nullsec in the last few years? Killboards are hard, amirite?
So you're basing your argument off killboards? It's worse than I thought. What?

Oh and this idea will not increase traffic, in fact more will die due to this change.
Why? Well why would we even consider ransoming after this change? It would be pointless, so everything would die.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ensign X
#506 - 2012-08-05 01:28:38 UTC
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
Traffic won't increase. Pirates will (as always) adapt to the new limitations, however that may be (super fast/cheap tacklers with vast amounts of sniper support?). Traffic still won't increase. The issue here is the gates, and the poor game design that they represent.


I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.

I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.

If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#507 - 2012-08-05 01:31:36 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:
Traffic won't increase. Pirates will (as always) adapt to the new limitations, however that may be (super fast/cheap tacklers with vast amounts of sniper support?). Traffic still won't increase. The issue here is the gates, and the poor game design that they represent.


I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.

I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.

If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.


Sebo inties will catch everything, the second they no longer insta die to gate guns. Fewer ships are making it past camps.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Ensign X
#508 - 2012-08-05 01:32:18 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ensign X wrote:
Beekeeper Bob wrote:
Have you ever been to 0.0? In the last few years? ... Do your reseach before making a blanket statement. Oops



You mean how you did research before asking if I've been to Nullsec in the last few years? Killboards are hard, amirite?
So you're basing your argument off killboards? It's worse than I thought. What?

Oh and this idea will not increase traffic, in fact more will die due to this change.
Why? Well why would we even consider ransoming after this change? It would be pointless, so everything would die.


Mag's, I'm not basing anything off of killboards. I was responding to a random troll - bad idea, I know.

Whether or not this particular change would increase traffic, it's good that people are at least discussing ways of doing it. I love lowsec, it's where I spend the majority of my time, and despite it probably not being in my best interest, I believe Lowsec could definitely benefit from increased traffic.
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation
#509 - 2012-08-05 01:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lock out
Posting to confirm that me gatecamping in a carrier is killing all noob traffic in lowsec.

Also I fully agree that something needs to be done to discourage all that fighting in lowsec, ppl are to eager to engage atm. Gateguns melting all off them should do the trick. If we're at it could those gates sing Hakuna Matata to make ppl feel more welcome ?
Ensign X
#510 - 2012-08-05 01:34:21 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:
Ensign X wrote:

I disagree that traffic won't increase. I've played with a lot of noobs and chat with them on a daily basis and the most cited deterrent for them avoiding lowsec are the gate camps. They believe, either because of what they've been told or what they've fallen victim themselves, that the prevalence of gate camps in lowsec means that solo travel is essentially nullified or becomes very limited in where and how you can travel.

I do agree that Ineffectual sentry guns and their poor design is the issue, however I believe the design is outdated as well rather than just straight up poor. I don't believe sentry guns were designed with the intent of ships being able to permanently tank them. Battleship level EHP obsoletes sentry guns when used by pirates who park on gates and roll their face across their keyboard anytime they see a gate flash. A mechanic as suggested that would force people to consider sentry gun damage into their strategy or force them off-grid on occasion is good, solid design.

If you stop making it so easy for pirates to farm every noob who dares leave highsec I have no doubt that lowsec traffic will increase.


Sebo inties will catch everything, the second they no longer insta die to gate guns. Fewer ships are making it past camps.


I don't disagree with you. I'm also not agreeing with the design concept as laid out by CCP. What I'm saying, if you take a minute to comprehend what I wrote, is that one way or another Lowsec needs some lovin' and an injection of pilots. Gate guns are the biggest culprit preventing that from happening.
Ensign X
#511 - 2012-08-05 01:35:23 UTC
Lock out wrote:
Posting to confirm that me gatecamping in a carrier is killing all noob traffic in lowsec.

Also I fully agree that something needs to be done to discourage all that fighting in lowsec, ppl are to eager to engage atm. Gateguns melting all off them should do the trick.


Reading is hard. Comprehension is harder. Move along.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#512 - 2012-08-05 01:36:06 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Mag's, I'm not basing anything off of killboards. I was responding to a random troll - bad idea, I know.

Whether or not this particular change would increase traffic, it's good that people are at least discussing ways of doing it. I love lowsec, it's where I spend the majority of my time, and despite it probably not being in my best interest, I believe Lowsec could definitely benefit from increased traffic.
But this is what we are trying to explain, it will not increase traffic.
All it will do is make us adapt and simply pounce camp. But instead of ransoming where we see expense, we will simply kill everything. who's going to stick around for ransoming, with high DPS gate guns?

This means more will die, so traffic will either remain the same, or get worse. It will not improve.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation
#513 - 2012-08-05 01:37:02 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Lock out wrote:
Posting to confirm that me gatecamping in a carrier is killing all noob traffic in lowsec.

Also I fully agree that something needs to be done to discourage all that fighting in lowsec, ppl are to eager to engage atm. Gateguns melting all off them should do the trick.


Reading is hard. Comprehension is harder. Move along.



Posting half the posts on the page is hard too.
Andrest Disch
Doctrine.
FEARLESS.
#514 - 2012-08-05 01:39:37 UTC
You know what brought people to lowsec? Incursions. Because they gave rewards proportional to the risks.

Why would someone want to live in lowsec if both the PvP and the rewards are ****?

Camps in this discussion are a total red herring.
Ensign X
#515 - 2012-08-05 01:42:09 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ensign X wrote:
Mag's, I'm not basing anything off of killboards. I was responding to a random troll - bad idea, I know.

Whether or not this particular change would increase traffic, it's good that people are at least discussing ways of doing it. I love lowsec, it's where I spend the majority of my time, and despite it probably not being in my best interest, I believe Lowsec could definitely benefit from increased traffic.
But this is what we are trying to explain, it will not increase traffic.
All it will do is make us adapt and simply pounce camp. But instead of ransoming where we see expense, we will simply kill everything. who's going to stick around for ransoming, with high DPS gate guns?

This means more will die, so traffic will either remain the same, or get worse. It will not improve.


I think you underestimate the mindset of the average noob. Specifically when it comes to smart bombing battleships. I talk to them every day and try to discourage that mindset. I'm well aware of the psychological effect that places like Rancer have on the amount of travel people make into Lowsec. I also think you're exaggerating the prevalence of ransoming as most people I know would never trust a pirate to a ransom for very good reason.
Ensign X
#516 - 2012-08-05 01:45:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ensign X
Lock out wrote:
Posting half the posts on the page is hard too.


Working on it, almost there. (ninja edit: damn, only 7 of 19) P

I feel I have a somewhat unique opinion on this compared to the random drivel found in the thread. I spend a lot of time in-game mentoring and talking with new players. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp of what it is that prevents them, for the most part, from entering Lowsec. I make a point of encouraging them that Lowsec isn't nearly the lawless void that the average carebear claims it is.
Adalynne Rohks
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#517 - 2012-08-05 01:48:40 UTC
Templar Nato wrote:
A lot of the posters in this thread seem to have limited experience with gate guns. I'd like to see if they have the same opinion after taking their favorite battlecruiser out solo and engaging someone on a gate and seeing what happens to them. Yeah, you lose ... The gate guns are already a massive bonus for the player being aggressed (as they should be). I can't count the number of times I've run into people on gates who sit there picking their nose staring at me and refusing to shoot because they not only want to outnumber me, but want me to take gate guns as well.


Maybe working out a way for small, relatively even matched encounters to take place at gates would be good. But the reason for the change isn't because of 1 BC trying to shoot another BC. You playing stupid?

Templar Nato wrote:
As mentioned previously, 90% of PvP in low sec takes place on stations and gates as they are natural bottlenecks. the suggestions that we all meet at planet 1 to shoot each other are as absurd as they sound.


So you're saying that they're natural bottlenecks...? As in, they funnel any potential enemies toward you? So all you have to do is sit there and wait as long as you like for your unaware victims? Sounds about right.

Templar Nato wrote:
Perhaps the changes would bring more risk adverse people into Low sec, however, what's the point? We can't shoot them on the gates and we can't shoot them on stations, meaning we'd have to probe people down doing whatever it is they're in low sec for ... certainly not the fleet-based roaming PvP I currently enjoy.


The bolded..... god forbid.... Why should you have to move anywhere? Why on earth would somebody try to set up an ambush at a asteroid belt, or at a archaeology site.......?

Templar Nato wrote:
Asking for a game mechanic to act as a crutch is pretty sad.


I love irony. Yeah. I mean, why people have to have a gate act as a funnel that brings all the enemies to them, instead of actually having to seek and destroy targets? It's pretty pathetic that people couldn't function without that crutch.


I'm sure the idea by itself isn't perfect, but it seems like it would absolutely be a step in the right direction. If more people occupy lowsec, even occasionally, there would be more targets, more pvp, but at least both sides of the engagement would be able to adequately prepare themselves.

Or you could just keep ganking newbies at gates, I guess...
Ludi Burek
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#518 - 2012-08-05 02:07:04 UTC
I wish people would stop talking about inties tackling on gates and people sniping from outside sentry range because that's just giving clues to the geniuses that sentry range needs to be infinite and start with epic dps Lol

Also confirming that people's ability to herpa derp in their unprepaired ships into Amamake from Osoggur takes precedence over any other style of gameplay.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#519 - 2012-08-05 02:42:21 UTC
nothing is going to stop me from harvesting poor little ships and pods in lowsec. sorry to say gents you wont be safe even with the changes.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#520 - 2012-08-05 02:52:51 UTC
Ludi Burek wrote:
I wish people would stop talking about inties tackling on gates and people sniping from outside sentry range because that's just giving clues to the geniuses that sentry range needs to be infinite and start with epic dps Lol

Also confirming that people's ability to herpa derp in their unprepaired ships into Amamake from Osoggur takes precedence over any other style of gameplay.

Maybe it should be infinite ...

Or perhaps they can warp next to you, scram and then web you.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?